Curo housing disrepair ruling offers clear guidance and a costs warning for tenant solicitors

David Harry, Associate in our Dispute Resolution Team, considers the recent case of Lancastle v Curo Group (Albion) Limited and Bailey & Bennet v Curo Places Limited, in which our specialist Housing Disrepair Team represented Curo. He looks at how the decision of the Designated Civil Judge for Bristol has offered valuable guidance to social landlords and a salutary warning to those acting for tenants in housing conditions claims.

Background

On the 23 June 2025, HHJ Blohm KC handed down his judgement in two housing disrepair claims against social landlords. The decisions concern the tenant’s representatives unilaterally instructing their own experts in what the landlord said was in breach of the pre-action protocol.

In each case the tenant’s representative sent a letter of claim to the landlord. The landlord responded with its reasoned to response to the allegations of alleged housing disrepair based on the landlord’s own in-house survey.

During the course of correspondence, the landlord’s solicitors insisted that any attempt to unilaterally appoint an expert would be objected to on the basis that expert evidence was not yet necessary. Further, that the landlord should be allowed an opportunity to undertake the works without the cost of appointing an expert.

The court’s decision

The court decided that the tenants not be allowed to recover the costs of instructing and obtaining the expert evidence no matter whether they went on to win or lose the substantive claim.

The court decided:

• The tenants were in breach of the protocol by instructing an expert as a sole expert where they did so either before or after the landlord’s response without engaging in the response properly.
• Where an extension of time has been agreed for a response to the letter of claim, parties should hold off instructing experts until after that deadline has passed.
• A tenant is required to engage with the landlord’s response to the letter of claim before obtaining expert evidence. A failure to do so will likely result in breach of the protocol. Engagement in this context at the very least requires the tenant to set out what they disagree with and if so, confirmation as to the tenant’s position in respect of expert evidence.
• The landlord needs to be given an opportunity to reflect and respond to the tenant’s position on expert evidence. Seven days is suggested by the judge as being a reasonable period.

The court went on to further observe:

• Expert evidence should only be adduced where there is a dispute, and the expert evidence is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings under r35.1 CPR 1998.
• A landlord can decide how defects are to be remedied provided the means adopted are reasonable.
• Experts must only be appointed in good faith – i.e. to resolve a dispute between the parties.
• If expert evidence is necessary, the starting point should be that it is given by a single joint expert.
• Where the identity of the single joint expert is not reasonably agreeable to the landlord, the parties are under an obligation to negotiate the identity of an acceptable single joint expert.

Comment

One can predict with a great degree of confidence the outcome of a housing conditions claim once the expert evidence is finalised. Social landlords will be used to seeing expert evidence served on behalf of their tenants that come as a surprise to them both in terms of the cost of repairs and scope of repairs needed when compared against their own in-house surveyors who are intimately familiar with their housing stock.

If a case can be fairly resolved without the need for costly expert evidence, this is to be encouraged. However, the practice of some lawyers unilaterally instructing experts in breach of the protocol is a problem across the sector.

On the basis that these claims were being funded by a no-win, no-fee type agreement it will be for the tenant’s representatives, or any insurance policy taken out by the tenant, to cover the small fortune the experts will have invoiced. There will be no means by which the tenant’s lawyers will be able to recoup for the time they spent on that part of the case.

This costs penalty serves as a warning to those representing tenants that the court expects compliance with the pre-action protocol – and that the premature and unconsidered instruction of experts (particularly where there has been a failure to meaningfully engage with the landlord’s response) will be punished by the court in costs.

Housing disrepair litigation is incredibly expensive to social housing providers. It diverts money from capital programs and investments for the benefit of tenants. Although the best advice to landlords remains is to:

1. Keep detailed contemporaneous records of reports of disrepair & the action taken as a result; and
2. Undertake the repairs ASAP, the guidance from HHJ Blohm deserves careful consideration.